I used to love the medieval long swords and bastard swords, but now that I have studied some actual combat I find that I prefer curved. It usually cuts better and alows for easy slash, hack, and (unless overly curved) thrust. While a strait alows only easy hack and stab, leaving a slash rather difficult. My point? Why did most of Europe use strait blades?

What organization did you study combat with?

What you studied, and how, might explain part of your preference.

I have found many straight blades very easy to cut with, and to thrust with. Many will do some things better than others. Its very hard to keep a one size fits all approach to striaght bladed swords. There is quite a bit of variation among them. Most of the time when I don't cut well with a straight bladed sword its a case of instantly recognizable user error.

Well for one thing European armor evolved to the point where cutting was extremely ineffective and the best way to use a sword would be to thrust into gaps in the armor. Straight blades are better thrusters and curved blades give more powerful cuts, so straight blades were the obvious preference. There are many other reasons but that one comes to mind immediately.

Well, what I mean by hack is where you have simple force slamming the edge of your sword into the target. By slash i mean where you both have the force of the blade against the target and a sliding motion runing the blade across the surfice of the target. This makes it much easier to cut deep and requires less force but it feels strang and aquwered (sp?) with a strait edge but it is very nateral with a curved blade.

Another thing that just came to me is the control of the Catholic church. It may have been concidered more "Christian" to have a strait, two edged sword in refrence to the bible being called the "two-edged sword". This may be even a primary reason in parts of Europe.

Again I would like to ask what organization you studied with?

The answer to that will probably provide a more valid and accurate answer to your question than historical speculation. One tends to prefer what one learns. Many European masters, according to surviving texts, taught a variety or weapons and techniques for them. They were practical men and often, but not always, used practical tools.

Hello all!
I wonder, could the prevalence of straight blades in ancient and medieval western Europe have something to do with a "cultural", as opposed to a "religious" tradition? Perhaps European blade smiths stuck to a "standard", "traditional" design because that was what they were used to and familiar with. Traditional methods often mean little in todays modern world, but tradition could be a very important impetus in the past.
Take the Ulfberht blades, for instance. A Frankish bladesmith somewhere around the year 850 came up with a very elegant blade design. The name Ulfberht, however, can't possibly refer just to one smith; there must have been hundreds of Ulfberht blades made in a period over 250 years. Why did the smiths that followed Ulfberht stick to that same design, including the signature inlay? It seems that they hit on a design of blade that worked for them at that period, but there might also be a bit of "following tradition" involved.
Another thing to consider; often medieval illuminations depict "wicked" or "Oriental" peoples as wielding curved swords, while the "good" or "Christian" soldiers usually wield straight, double-edged swords. There may have been a bit of cultural bias against curved swords. Straight swords may have fit the European view of "a sword".
The Japanese didn't change their blade style much overs hundreds of years due to tradition. Perhaps European swords evolved under a similar traditional mindset. Others have already discussed the practical aspects of having a straight blade that can thrust into armour, but it doesn't necessarily explain straight Viking or Crusader swords. I think there were other factors involved over the choice of "straight" versus "curved" outside of mere practical considerations.
I hope this seems reasonable!
Stay safe!

From other topic posts on this site it seems that what we associate with Eastern swords being mostly curved sabres was a later development and the use of strait swords was the norm in the Middle east during the early Medieval period.

The curves sabres were introduced later by the Turks by I'm not sure exactly when.

A search on this site for a topic(s) dealing with eastern weapons using key words like shamshir etc ..... should lead you to previous discussions relating to this.

Hello again!
Another interesting twist on this discussion is the fact that there are two swords attributed to Charlemagne. One is the well-known, straight cruciform sword used as the Coronation Sword of the Kings of France. The other is a lesser-well known slightly curved sword that looks similar to a Persian or Indian sword, but is probably Hungarian in origin. Oakeshott describes both, and has a drawing of the slightly curved sword, in The Archaeology of Weapons.
Why use the straight sword instead of the curved sword as the Coronation Sword? Perhaps it was a cultural bias, although by this period, it could also have a religious significance.
Oh, and the second "Sword of Charlemagne" does show that certain parts of Europe did indeed use curved blades even before the better known shamshir of Persia and India. There is a drawing of an 11th century sabre, a 12th-13th century Cuman sabre, and a 14th-15th century sabre (all in museums in Budapest) in David Nicolle's Osprey book Hungary and the Fall of Eastern Europe 1000-1568. The same page shows drawings of straight single and double-edged blades used by neighboring peoples. The Hungarians used curved blades, but they never really caught on amongst their neighbors. Why?
Stay safe!

My training has been limited do to expenses and the lack of availability. I have had some training in foil fencing, medieval long sword, and kenjutsu. All others have been with a friend who was trained in a kick boxing like invirnment where he learned a variety of weapons from long-swords to a scimetar or sabre like weapon. As for the "superiority" of the Katana, the thing thats good about it is its strength along with its light wait. Infact the reason that you find that the Japanese used Bamboo armer instead of seel is the Katana had no problem cuting right through it, whil the fibers of the Bamboo were known to deflect or cetch the sword. I don't know who would win if you put a Samurai against a Knight, but I know that the samurai were an impresive fighting force.

I think the real reason that curved swords were developed was because they work well from a mounted position with down cuts. Just speculation on my part but do bear in mind the fact that a lot of cultures that adopted curved blades were evolved from horse dominant cultures or from cultures that had their principal warriors evolve from cavalry. The Japanese Samurai even evolved from horse cavalry archers too. Maybe I'm wrong, but it's something I thought up reading the replies. Perhaps someone else on the list can play with this idea and debunk/prove it better than I.

Off to work. :-)

It could have something to do with being mounted. But why wouldn't the british use curves sense they were often mounted. And also there is the larger two handed scimetars used by muslims of north afraca, they were used wile standing and not wile mounted. It is interesting, but I think now that the curved blade would have been more of a civilian weapon because it probably wasn't as good against armor. What about the description of the muslim king who was at war with Rome, it is said that Rome sent a bundle of Roman swords as a peace offering but the king took out his Scimitar and proceeded to destroy the swords. Is this just a mith or is their some truth to it?